[taeric]

Apologies, that was not what I meant. I meant it more directly in assuming the technical side works and you are able to scroll just fine, how do you meaningfully do so with that much data?

And I don't mean this as an attack. I presume there are some techniques that I just don't know. Or data sets I just don't typically interact with.

For the ones I am used to, aggregates are key to working with them. That and graphical visualizations. (Though, it is frustrating how many visualizations can be reduced quickly to "top N" or similar.)

[simion314]

Say in my web app I can save "projects" and I have 200 projects in total. Because of DOM performance the devs implemented pagination say 40 items at max so I have 5 pages of projects. We all know the issues with pagination.

If all the projects are loaded I can :

1 scroll all of them , exactly like I scroll a document or how I scroll in my File Manager or Image Viewer

2 I can do Instant Filter and Search, no backend requests, don't you hate when say you open a YouTube account video list and you just can't use the browser Find function because the content is not in the page

One example is YouTube in a specific account Videos section , you are forced to scroll and wait, scroll and wait , scroll and wait , they can try and hack this to be smoother but this could be instant since the JSON for all the videos could be returned at once, it is just text and is more efficient then returning it in chunks , then like in competent GUI toolkits you have a big grid with all the results and the toolkit/framework Grid does the work for you in making sure that everything is rendered efficiently and smooth.

I would prefer at least an option in this apps to offer the customer a setting to decide the Page size , maybe I want a slower initial load but have everything loaded in one screen , imagine paginated File Manager

[taeric]

Agreed on most points. But 200 is a very different number from 3.2m. I would expect I could load all 200 in the client and get fast local operations. For 3.2m, I'd expect sending the filter off client would be faster.

Essentially, for performance there is a tradeoff between sending the data to where you will perform operations, and sending operations to the data. I don't know where the cutoff is, but I'd expect 3.2m to be on the "send operations to the data" side.

[simion314]

if there are 3 million simple objects like title, url, thumbnail url, why would be faster to send the request, to the filtering in the backed db and then send the response back? I suspect that an Array.filter would be as fast with a db search + the request overhead.

I just wish that the DOM would have some built in List,Table, Grid components, like you have in Qt,.Net WPF or Flex4 . Today we just have divs in divs in divs.

[taeric]

I mean, fair, you could have tiny objects? My assertion was to not send all 3m rows to the frontend, but only the results of any aggregations and such. Want to know the top N? That should require sending N rows, period. Same for filtering and such. This is basically just a restatement of the "send the operations to the data" approach. Is a big part of why doing joins in the database is so much faster than doing them in the application layer.

And, as you allude, the shuffling of all of the DOM overhead to manage what is visible is non-trivial. Yes, you can basically flyweight it to save memory, but it is only a matter of time before the user wants Ctrl-F to work and then you try to find a way to put the whole object in a place for the user to directly work against. (Yeah, you would probably try to capture Ctrl-F in the application and fake the native search. But then case folding and other concerns now have to be reimplemented by you.)

[davidivadavid]

It's something that's both a common B2B requirement because users keep asking for it ("I want to see all of my data at once"), and something functionally ~useless.